Tag: Department of Health and Human Services

Telehealth Update: DEA/HHS Temporary Rule, Medicare Coverage of Telehealth Services, Potential for Increased Oversight, and What to Watch For in 2025

Telehealth companies and other industry stakeholders have had a watchful eye towards the end of 2024 and the impending “telehealth cliff” as COVID-era Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) flexibilities and Medicare expanded telehealth coverage are set to expire. Although a recent temporary joint rule from the DEA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) along with the 2025 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule final rule has provided some hope, questions regarding telehealth access in 2025 and under a new Administration remain unclear. Further, calls continue for increased oversight of telehealth services. Below, we breakdown recent updates for the telehealth industry.

DEA Telehealth Flexibilities

Providing some good news, late last month the DEA and HHS jointly issued a temporary rule (the Temporary Rule) extending the COVID-era flexibilities for prescribing controlled substances via telehealth through the end of 2025. The flexibilities, which previously were twice extended and set to expire December 31, 2024, temporarily waive the in-person requirements for prescribing under the Controlled Substances Act.

The DEA and HHS issued the Temporary Rule to ensure that providers and patients who have come to rely on telehealth services are able to smoothly transition to the new requirements, which as previously covered, are likely to significantly limit providers’ ability to prescribe controlled substances without an in-person interaction. The Temporary Rule also acknowledges that the DEA and HHS continue to work with relevant stakeholders and will use the additional time to promulgate proposed and final regulations that “effectively expand access to telemedicine” in a manner that is consistent with public health and safety, while mitigating the risk of diversion. The agencies also note that the limited time period of the extension is aimed at avoiding investment in new telemedicine companies that may encourage or enable problematic prescribing practices.

The Temporary Rule effectively allows all DEA-registered providers to prescribe Schedule II-V controlled substances via telehealth through the end of 2025, regardless of when the provider-patient relationship was formed. Consistent with the prior temporary rules, the following requirements continue to apply:

  • The prescription must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice.
  • The prescription must be issued pursuant to a telehealth interaction using two-way, real-time audio-visual technology, or for prescriptions to treat a mental health disorder, a two-way, real-time audio-only communication if the patient is not capable of, or does not consent to, the use of video technology.
  • The practitioner must be authorized under their DEA registration to prescribe the basic class of controlled medication specified on the prescription or be exempt from obtaining a registration to dispense controlled substances.
  • The prescription must meet all other requirements of the DEA regulations.

Providers should also be cognizant of applicable state laws that may place additional restrictions on the ability to prescribe certain medications or otherwise provide treatment via telehealth.

Medicare Coverage of Telehealth Services 

Unlike the DEA flexibilities, many of the COVID-era flexibilities for traditional Medicare coverage of telehealth services will end on December 31, 2024. Despite bipartisan support, congressional action is required to extend broad coverage for certain telehealth services existing since March 2020. Most notably, unless Congress acts, beginning January 1, 2025 expiring flexibilities include waiving the originating site requirements to allow beneficiaries to receive services in their homes and expanding the list of Medicare-enrolled providers who can furnish telehealth services.

Further, beginning January 1, 2025, Medicare coverage of telehealth services for beneficiaries outside of rural health care settings will be limited to:

  • Monthly End-Stage Renal Disease visits for home dialysis;
  • Services for diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of symptoms of an acute stroke;
  • Treatment of substance use disorder or a co-occurring mental health disorder, or for the diagnosis, evaluation or treatment of a mental health disorder;
  • Behavioral health services;
  • Diabetes self-management training; and
  • Nutrition therapy.

For its part, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently issued its 2025 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule (the MPFS Final Rule) extending and making permanent certain telehealth flexibilities within its authority. In particular, through December 31, 2025, practitioners may continue to utilize live video to meet certain Medicare direct supervision requirements and reference their currently enrolled practice when providing telehealth services from their home. The MPFS Final Rule continues to remove frequency limitations for certain hospital inpatient/observation care, skilled nursing facility visits, and critical care consultation services furnished via telehealth. Additionally, the MPFS Final Rule makes permanent the utilization of audio-only telehealth for any Medicare-covered telehealth service.

Increased Telehealth Oversight 

Recent months also have seen renewed calls for increased oversight of telehealth services. In September, the HHS Office for Inspector General (OIG) issued a report (the OIG Report) recommending increased oversight of Medicare coverage of remote patient monitoring. As a basis for its findings, the OIG Report cites the dramatic increased utilization of and payments for remote patient monitoring from 2019 to 2022, the fact that over 40% of Medicare beneficiaries receiving remote patient monitoring did not receive all three components of the service (i.e., education and setup, device supply, and treatment management), and the observation that Medicare lacks key information regarding the data being collected and the types of monitoring devices utilized. Notably, OIG conducted its review in part because of the potential for significant expansion of remote patient monitoring in the Medicare population.

Given these factors, the OIG Report recommends that CMS:

  1. Implement additional safeguards to ensure that remote patient monitoring is used and billed appropriately in Medicare.
  2. Require that remote patient monitoring be ordered and that information about the ordering provider be included on claims and encounter data for remote patient monitoring.
  3. Develop methods to identify what health data are being monitored.
  4. Conduct provider education about billing of remote patient monitoring.
  5. Identify and monitor companies that bill for remote patient monitoring.

Separately, concerns also have been raised regarding the recent emergence of direct-to-consumer telehealth platforms sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. In this model, patients seeking specific medications are linked to a health care provider who can virtually prescribe the requested medication. In October, U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), joined by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent letters to several pharmaceutical companies requesting written response to questions regarding these platforms including the cost of direct-to-consumer advertising, the arrangements between the telehealth providers and the pharmaceutical companies, and whether the virtual consultation comply with the standard of care.

Conclusion

Despite attempts to preserve and expand telehealth access and affordability, effective January 1, 2025, many Medicare beneficiaries will be cut off from certain telehealth services unless one of the bills currently pending in Congress is passed. Crucially, bipartisan support for increased access to telehealth services is likely to continue in both chambers of Congress. Although the incoming Administration has not detailed its plans regarding telehealth access on a permanent, or even temporary basis, telehealth will continue to play an important role in the United States health care system through 2025 and beyond. As telehealth continues to play an important role in increasing access to care, increased oversight and enforcement is almost certain, even if future oversight priorities are unclear. As always, we will continue to monitor and report on important telehealth developments.

©1994-2024 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
For more on Telehealth, visit the NLR Health Law Managed Care section

No More Fraud Vampires: Whistleblowers Put a Stake in Phlebotomy Unlawful Kickback Scheme

31 October 2024. Two whistleblowers “stopped the bleeding” caused by an alleged kickback scheme perpetrated by a mobile phlebotomy service based in California. Veni-Express, Inc. and its owners have agreed to pay $135,000 to settle allegations of violating the Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act. While the award for the two whistleblowers has not yet been determined, False Claims Act qui tam whistleblowers may be rewarded between 15-25% of the settlement.

Overview of the Case

According to the allegations, from 2015 to 2019, Veni-Express allegedly submitted false claims to federal health care programs for services that were not actually performed. These services included venipuncture procedures during homebound patient visits and non-reimbursable travel mileage claims for the visits. The fraudulent activities were reportedly conducted with the oversight of the company’s owners, Myrna and Sonny Steinbaum.

Additionally, between July 2014 and June 2015, Veni-Express allegedly paid unlawful kickbacks to Altera Laboratories, also known as Med2U Healthcare LLC, to market their services. These kickbacks were disguised as a percentage of company revenue.

Unlawful Kickbacks and Phantom Billing

The Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) is a federal law that prohibits healthcare providers from offering, soliciting, or receiving anything of value to induce or reward referrals for services covered by federally funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. When providers violate the AKS, they compromise patient care by prioritizing financial gain over medical necessity, which can lead to unnecessary, costly, or substandard treatments. Phantom billing, which involves charging Medicare and Medicaid for services never provided, drains funds that could otherwise be used for essential care for beneficiaries. It leads to increased healthcare costs, putting a strain on federally funded healthcare programs and potentially causing cuts or restrictions in services. This fraudulent practice also erodes trust in the healthcare system, which can prevent beneficiaries from seeking the care they need. As the Special Agent in Charge for the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General said about the case, “Improper incentives and billing Medicare for services never actually provided divert taxpayer funding meant to pay for medically necessary services for Medicare enrollees.”

Settlement Details

The settlement agreement is based upon the parties’ ability to pay, requiring Veni-Express to pay $100,000, with additional payments contingent upon the sale of company property. Myrna Steinbaum will pay $25,000, while Sonny Steinbaum will contribute $10,000.

Whistleblower Involvement

The whistleblowers in the qui tam actions were a former phlebotomist and a laboratory technical director. The qui tam provision in the False Claims Act allows private citizens with knowledge of fraud to report fraud schemes to the government and share in the government’s recovery.

Implications for Healthcare Professionals

This whistleblower settlement serves as a cautionary tale for healthcare professionals, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to regulatory standards. It underscores the power industry insiders have to speak up and put an end to fraud schemes that taint the healthcare profession.

© 2024 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP
For more on Whistleblowers, visit the NLR Criminal Law Business Crimes section.

BIOSECURE Act: Anticipated Movement, Key Provisions, and Likely Impact

Last night, the House of Representatives passed the BIOSECURE Act (BIOSECURE or the Act) by a bipartisan vote of 306 to 81.

The BIOSECURE Act prohibits federal agencies from procuring or obtaining any biotechnology equipment or service produced or provided by a biotechnology company of concern. Subject to some exceptions, it also prohibits federal agencies from contracting with a company that uses equipment or services produced or provided by a biotechnology company of concern. Further, the Act prohibits recipients of a loan or grant from a federal agency from using federal funds to purchase equipment or services from a biotechnology company of concern.

The Senate version of BIOSECURE, sponsored by Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN), was voted out of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental affairs with bipartisan support in March 2024. Given its passage in the House last night, the BIOSECURE Act is likely to be signed into law by the end of the year. The House version of BIOSECURE is likely to be the version that becomes law. President Biden is unlikely to veto the Act given its bipartisan support, his previous executive actions to support domestic biotechnology development, and his Administration’s approach towards competition with China.

The Act defines “biotechnology company of concern” as any entity that:

  • is subject to the jurisdiction, direction, control, or operates on behalf of the government of a foreign adversary (defined as China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia);
  • is involved in the manufacturing, distribution, provision, or procurement of a biotechnology equipment or service; and
  • poses a risk to U.S. national security based on:
    • engaging in joint research with, being supported by, or being affiliated with a foreign adversary’s military, internal security forces, or intelligence agencies;
    • providing multiomic data obtained via biotechnology equipment or services to the government of a foreign adversary; or
    • obtaining human multiomic data via the biotechnology equipment or services without express and informed consent.

Somewhat unusually, the Act names specific Chinese companies as automatically qualifying as “biotechnology companies of concern”:

  • BGI (formerly known as the Beijing Genomics Institute);
  • MGI;
  • Complete Genomics;
  • WuXi AppTec; and
  • WuXi Biologics.

Both categories include any subsidiary, parent, affiliate, or successor entities of biotechnology companies of concern.

The Act also has very broad definitions of “biotechnology equipment or service.” The definition of equipment encompasses any machine, device, or subcomponent, including software that is “designed for use in the research, development, production, or analysis of biological materials.” The definition of services is similarly broad.

The BIOSECURE Act also requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to publish a list of additional biotechnology companies of concern. The list is prepared by the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the Secretaries of the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Commerce, Homeland Security, and State, as well as the Director of National Intelligence and National Cyber Director. This list of companies must be published by OMB within one year of BIOSECURE’s enactment and reviewed annually by OMB in consultation with the other Departments.

Guidance and Regulatory Authorities

OMB is also tasked with developing guidance and has 120 days from enactment of the statute to do so for the named companies. For the list of biotechnology companies of concern, OMB’s guidance must be established within 180 days after the development of the list.

Beyond OMB, the Act requires the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to incorporate its prohibitions. The FAR regulations must be issued within one year of when OMB establishes its guidance.

For named companies the Act’s prohibitions are effective 60 days after the issuance of the FAR regulations. For companies placed on the biotechnology company of concern list, the effective date for the Act’s prohibitions is 80 days after the issuance of FAR regulations.

Impact on Existing Business Relationships

In response to stakeholder concerns about disrupting existing commercial relationships and triggering delays in drug development, the House version of the BIOSECURE Act provides a five-year unwinding period for contracts and agreements entered into before the Act’s effective dates. Contracts entered into after the Act’s effective dates do not qualify for the five year unwinding period.

Process for Designating Companies

BIOSECURE specifies the process for designating a biotechnology company of concern. Critically, the Act does not require OMB to notify a company prior to the Department of Defense making the designation. Rather, a company will receive notice that it is being designated and placed on the biotechnology company of concern list. Moreover, the criteria for listing will only be provided “to the extent consistent with national security and law enforcement interests.” Thus, companies may face a circumstance where they are not provided the evidence supporting their designation.

Once a company receives the notice, it will have 90 days to submit information and arguments opposing the listing. The Act does not require a hearing or any formal administrative process. If practicable, the notice may also include steps the company could take to avoid being listed, but it is not required.

Safe Harbor, Waivers and Exceptions

The Act only has one safe harbor for biotechnology equipment or services that were formerly but no longer provided or produced by a biotechnology company of concern. This safe harbor seems intended to allow a biotechnology company of concern to sell their ownership of a product or service to another company without prohibitions applying to the new owner.

Agency heads may waive the Act’s prohibitions on a case-by-case basis, but only with the approval of OMB acting “in coordination with the Secretary of Defense.” Waivers must be reported to Congress within 30 days of being granted. The waiver may last for up to a year with an additional “one time” extension of 180 days allowed if an agency head determines it is “in the national security interests of the United States.” The 180-day extension must be approved by OMB and the agency head must notify and submit a justification to Congress within 10 days of the waiver being granted.

The Act has only two exceptions. First, its prohibitions do not apply to intelligence activities. Second, the prohibitions do not apply to health care services provided to federal employees, members of the armed services, and government contractors who are stationed in a foreign country or on official foreign travel.

Impact and Considerations for Clients

1. Increased Risk of Partnerships with Chinese Companies and Researchers:

Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that receive federal funding or contract with federal agencies should be prepared to wind down business ties to biotechnology companies in China. Impacted companies need to begin evaluating the risk to their supply chains, manufacturing capacity, and R&D pipelines in the event a business partner is listed.

Universities in the United States and other research institutes that receive federal funding will also need to undertake a similar assessment of their research partners and collaborators based in China.

2. Loss of CDMO capacity:

Wuxi App Tec is a large, global provider of contract development and manufacturing (CDMO) services to the life sciences industry. According to the New York Times “[b]y one estimate Wuxi has been involved in developing one-fourth of the drugs used in the United States.” BIOSECURE would effectively ban Wuxi from conducting business in the United States, and if passed, risks causing delays, shortages, and cost increases as companies seek to transition to other CDMOs. It will likely take years for competitors to replace the lost CDMO capacity.

3. Fate of Wuxi U.S. Facilities:

Wuxi has a large presence in the United States. It operates 12 facilities and employs almost 2,000 people. Normally, Wuxi would be expected to sell its U.S.-based facilities. However, based on Tiktok’s experience, it is unclear if the Government of China will permit Wuxi to sell its facilities as opposed to dismantling and/or relocating facilities outside of the United States.

4. OMB’s Management of Biotechnology Companies of Concern List

OMB does not typically manage processes like the one envisioned by BIOSECURE. How OMB interprets the broad criteria for listing companies will be critical. Which Departments, beyond the Department of Defense, will have the greatest influence on OMB’s decision making and how open OMB is to evidence from companies seeking to avoid listing will also need to be watched closely. Until OMB starts preparing its guidance and the FAR regulations are proposed, it is hard to anticipate the rate at which new companies will be added to the list. How the process established by BIOSECURE will interact with or leverage existing entity lists will be another development to closely monitor.

5. Retaliation by China

BIOSECURE’s passage is likely to trigger a response from the Government of China. Responses could range from imposing its own export controls to using the country’s sweeping national security laws to harass United States businesses and their employees. Companies doing business in China, particularly those in the pharmaceutical or biotech industries need to be prepared.

© 2024 Foley & Lardner LLP
For more on Biotechnology, visit the NLR Biotech Food Drug section

Recent Healthcare-Related Artificial Intelligence Developments

AI is here to stay. The development and use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) is rapidly growing in the healthcare landscape with no signs of slowing down.

From a governmental perspective, many federal agencies are embracing the possibilities of AI. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is exploring the ability of AI to estimate sentinel events and combat disease outbreaks and the National Institutes of Health is using AI for priority research areas. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is also assessing whether algorithms used by plans and providers to identify high risk patients and manage costs can introduce bias and restrictions. Additionally, as of December 2023, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration cleared more than 690 AI-enabled devices for market use.

From a clinical perspective, payers and providers are integrating AI into daily operations and patient care. Hospitals and payers are using AI tools to assist in billing. Physicians are using AI to take notes and a wide range of providers are grappling with which AI tools to use and how to deploy AI in the clinical setting. With the application of AI in clinical settings, the standard of patient care is evolving and no entity wants to be left behind.

From an industry perspective, the legal and business spheres are transforming as a result of new national and international regulations focused on establishing the safe and effective use of AI, as well as commercial responses to those regulations. Three such regulations are top of mind, including (i) President Biden’s Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI; (ii) the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (“HHS”) Final Rule on Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability; and (iii) the World Health Organization’s (“WHO”) Guidance for Large Multi-Modal Models of Generative AI. In response to the introduction of regulations and the general advancement of AI, interested healthcare stakeholders, including many leading healthcare companies, have voluntarily committed to a shared goal of responsible AI use.

U.S. Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI

On October 30, 2023, President Biden issued an Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI (“Executive Order”). Though long-awaited, the Executive Order was a major development and is one of the most ambitious attempts to regulate this burgeoning technology. The Executive Order has eight guiding principles and priorities, which include (i) Safety and Security; (ii) Innovation and Competition; (iii) Commitment to U.S. Workforce; (iv) Equity and Civil Rights; (v) Consumer Protection; (vi) Privacy; (vii) Government Use of AI; and (viii) Global Leadership.

Notably for healthcare stakeholders, the Executive Order directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish guidelines and best practices for the development and use of AI and directs HHS to develop an AI Task force that will engineer policies and frameworks for the responsible deployment of AI and AI-enabled tech in healthcare. In addition to those directives, the Executive Order highlights the duality of AI with the “promise” that it brings and the “peril” that it has the potential to cause. This duality is reflected in HHS directives to establish an AI safety program to prioritize the award of grants in support of AI development while ensuring standards of nondiscrimination are upheld.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability Rule

In the wake of the Executive Order, the HHS Office of the National Coordinator finalized its rule to increase algorithm transparency, widely known as HT-1, on December 13, 2023. With respect to AI, the rule promotes transparency by establishing transparency requirements for AI and other predictive algorithms that are part of certified health information technology. The rule also:

  • implements requirements to improve equity, innovation, and interoperability;
  • supports the access, exchange, and use of electronic health information;
  • addresses concerns around bias, data collection, and safety;
  • modifies the existing clinical decision support certification criteria and narrows the scope of impacted predictive decision support intervention; and
  • adopts requirements for certification of health IT through new Conditions and Maintenance of Certification requirements for developers.

Voluntary Commitments from Leading Healthcare Companies for Responsible AI Use

Immediately on the heels of the release of HT-1 came voluntary commitments from leading healthcare companies on responsible AI development and deployment. On December 14, 2023, the Biden Administration announced that 28 healthcare provider and payer organizations signed up to move toward the safe, secure, and trustworthy purchasing and use of AI technology. Specifically, the provider and payer organizations agreed to:

  • develop AI solutions to optimize healthcare delivery and payment;
  • work to ensure that the solutions are fair, appropriate, valid, effective, and safe (“F.A.V.E.S.”);
  • deploy trust mechanisms to inform users if content is largely AI-generated and not reviewed or edited by a human;
  • adhere to a risk management framework when utilizing AI; and use of AI technology. Specifically, the provider and payer organizations agreed to:
  • develop AI solutions to optimize healthcare delivery and payment;
  • work to ensure that the solutions are fair, appropriate, valid, effective, and safe (“F.A.V.E.S.”);
  • deploy trust mechanisms to inform users if content is largely AI-generated and not reviewed or edited by a human;
  • adhere to a risk management framework when utilizing AI; and
  • research, investigate, and develop AI swiftly but responsibly.

WHO Guidance for Large Multi-Modal Models of Generative AI

On January 18, 2024, the WHO released guidance for large multi-modal models (“LMM”) of generative AI, which can simultaneously process and understand multiple types of data modalities such as text, images, audio, and video. The WHO guidance contains 98 pages with over 40 recommendations for tech developers, providers and governments on LMMs, and names five potential applications of LMMs, such as (i) diagnosis and clinical care; (ii) patient-guided use; (iii) administrative tasks; (iv) medical education; and (v) scientific research. It also addresses the liability issues that may arise out of the use of LMMs.

Closely related to the WHO guidance, the European Council’s agreement to move forward with a European Union AI Act (“Act”), was a significant milestone in AI regulation in the European Union. As previewed in December 2023, the Act will inform how AI is regulated across the European Union, and other nations will likely take note of and follow suit.

Conclusion

There is no question that AI is here to stay. But how the healthcare industry will look when AI is more fully integrated still remains to be seen. The framework for regulating AI will continue to evolve as AI and the use of AI in healthcare settings changes. In the meantime, healthcare stakeholders considering or adopting AI solutions should stay abreast of developments in AI to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

Copyright © 2024, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more on Healthcare, visit the NLR Health Law & Managed Care section.

Cannabis Rescheduling: HHS Findings and Legal Implications

On August 29, 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made a groundbreaking recommendation to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) – that cannabis should be rescheduled from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This recommendation was made pursuant to President Biden’s request that the Secretary of HHS and the Attorney General initiate a process to review how cannabis is scheduled under federal law. In recent days, the unredacted 252-page analysis supporting the August recommendation was released pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. While the DEA is presently reviewing HHS’s recommendation and has final authority to schedule a drug under the CSA, it is ultimately bound by HHS’s recommendations on scientific and medical matters.

Why does this matter? Cannabis1 has been a Schedule I substance since the CSA was enacted in 1971. Substances are controlled under the CSA by placement on one of five lists, Schedules I through V. Schedule I controlled substances are subject to the most stringent controls and have no current accepted medical use. As a result, it is illegal under federal law to produce, dispense, or possess cannabis except in the context of federally approved scientific studies. Violations may result in large fines and imprisonment, including mandatory minimum sentences. Comparatively, Schedule III substances are considered to have less abuse potential than Schedule I and II substances, and have a currently accepted medical use in the United States.

In recent years, nearly all the states within the U.S. have revised their laws to permit medical cannabis use. And 24 states, as well as the District of Columbia, have eliminated certain criminal penalties for recreational cannabis use by adults. However, under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws. Thus, states cannot actually legalize cannabis use without congressional or executive action, and all unauthorized activities under Schedule I involving cannabis are federal crimes anywhere in the United States.2

Notable Findings in HHS’s Recommendation

For HHS to recommend that the DEA change cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III, HHS had to make three specific findings: 1) cannabis has a lower potential for abuse than the drugs or other substances in Schedules I and II; 2) cannabis has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S.; and 3) abuse of cannabis may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. HHS considered eight factors to make those findings, some of which include: cannabis’s actual or relative potential for abuse; the state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug; the scope, duration, and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to public health. The unredacted analysis provides further insight into HHS’s determination to make the forementioned findings.

CANNABIS HAS A POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE LESS THAN THE DRUGS OR OTHER SUBSTANCES IN SCHEDULES I AND II.

To evaluate cannabis’s potential for abuse,3 HHS compared the harms associated with cannabis abuse to the harms associated with other substances, such as heroin (Schedule I), cocaine (Schedule II), and alcohol.4 HHS reported that evidence shows some individuals take cannabis in amounts sufficient to create a health hazard to themselves and the safety of other individuals and the community. However, HHS also reported evidence showing the vast majority of cannabis users are using cannabis in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes for themselves or others. From 2015 to 2021, the utilization-adjusted rate of adverse outcomes involving cannabis was consistently lower than the respective utilization-adjusted rates of adverse outcomes involving heroin, cocaine, and other comparators. Further, cannabis was the lowest-ranking group for serious medical outcomes, including death. Overall, the data indicated that cannabis produced fewer negative outcomes than Schedule I, Schedule II drugs, and, in some cases, alcohol.

CANNABIS HAS A CURRENTLY ACCEPTED MEDICAL USE IN TREATMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

To determine whether cannabis has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU) in the U.S., HHS evaluated a two-part standard: 1) whether “[t]here exists widespread, current experience with medical use of the substance by [healthcare providers] operating in accordance with implemented jurisdiction-authorized programs, where medical use is recognized by entities that regulate the practice of medicine”; and 2) whether “[t]here exists some credible scientific support for at least one of the medical uses for which Part 1 is met.”

Under Part 1, HHS confirmed that more than 30,000 healthcare providers across 43 U.S. jurisdictions are authorized to recommend the medical use of cannabis for more than six million registered patients for at least 15 medical conditions. The Part 1 findings, therefore, supported an assessment under Part 2. Under Part 2, HHS reported that, based on the totality of the available data, there exists some credible scientific support for the medical use of cannabis. Specifically, credible scientific support described at least some therapeutic cannabis uses for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting (e.g., chemotherapy-induced), and pain.

Overall, while HHS reported that cannabis has a currently accepted medical use in the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) underscored that such a finding does not mean that the FDA has approved cannabis as safe and effective for marketing as a drug in interstate commerce under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

ABUSE OF CANNABIS MAY LEAD TO MODERATE OR LOW PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE OR HIGH PSYCHOLOGICAL DEPENDENCE.

Lastly, HHS concluded that research indicated that chronic, but not acute, use of cannabis can produce both psychic and physical dependence in humans. However, while cannabis “can produce psychic dependence in some individuals,” HHS emphasized that “the likelihood of serious outcomes is low, suggesting that high psychological dependence does not occur in most individuals who use marijuana.”

Legal Ramifications of New Scheduling

Changing cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III may potentially allow cannabis to be lawfully dispensed by prescription5 and states’ medical cannabis programs may now be able to comply with the CSA. However, it would not make state laws legalizing recreational cannabis use in compliance with federal law without other legal changes by Congress or the executive branch. Under the change, medical cannabis users may be eligible for public housing, immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, and the purchase and possession of firearms. They may also face fewer barriers to federal employment and eligibility to serve in the military. Researchers would face less regulatory controls, and the DEA would no longer set production quota limitations for cannabis. Because the prohibition on business deductions in Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code only applies to Schedule I and II substances of the CSA, changing cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III would allow cannabis businesses to deduct business expenses on federal tax filing.

Importantly, some criminal penalties for CSA violations depend on the schedule of the substance. Thus, if cannabis were to be reclassified as a Schedule III substance, some criminal penalties for CSA violations would no longer apply or be significantly reduced. However, CSA penalties that specifically apply to cannabis, such as quantity-based mandatory minimum sentences, would not change under a new rescheduling.

Many advocates consider HHS’s findings a step in the right direction. Specifically, supporters consider the findings further evidence that cannabis should be removed from the CSA altogether and regulated akin to tobacco and alcohol (referred to as descheduling). Given the momentum of cannabis legalization across U.S. states and breakthroughs in the medical and scientific advantages of cannabis, Congressional or Executive legalization, or – at very least – descheduling of cannabis may be on the horizon.

1 The CSA classifies the cannabis plant and its derivatives as “marijuana.” The CSA definition of marijuana excludes (1) products that meet the legal definition of hemp and (2) the mature stalks of the cannabis plant; the sterilized seeds of the plant; and fibers, oils, and other products made from the stalks and seeds.

2 Congress has granted the states some leeway in the distribution and use of medical marijuana by passing an appropriations rider preventing the Department of Justice from using taxpayer funds to prevent states from “implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” Courts have interpreted this as a prohibition on federal prosecution of state-legal activities involving medical cannabis.

3 In its report, HHS defined “abuse” to mean the “intentional, non-therapeutic use of a drug to obtain a desired psychological or physiological effect.”

4 Alcohol is not a scheduled controlled substance, but was used as a comparison because of its extensive availability and use in the U.S., which is also observed for the nonmedical use of cannabis.

5 Although the FDA has approved some drugs derived from cannabis, cannabis is not presently an FDA-approved drug.

Copyright © 2024, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more on Cannabis, visit the NLR Biotech, Food, Drug section.

NCLC Tells FCC “Callers can easily avoid making calls to telephone numbers that have been reassigned….” – But Is it That Simple?

The National Consumer Law Center is at it again.

In response to the Department of Health and Human Services’ recent letter to the FCC seeking clarity on whether the TCPA applies to texts it would like to make to alert Americans of certain medical benefits, the NCLC–an organization that nominally represents consumers, but really seems to represent the interests of the plaintiff’s bar–has filed a comment.

Unsurprisingly, the NCLC takes the position that HHS needs no relief. Government contractors are covered by the TCPA–it says–but the texts at issue in HHS’ letter are consented, so they’re fine. (Although it later clarifies that only “many” but not “all” of the enrollees whom HHS wishes to call have “probably” given their telephone numbers as part of written enrollment agreements–so perhaps not.)

Hmmmm. Feels like a trap. But we’ll ignore that for now.

The critical piece here though is what the NCLC–very powerful voice, for better or (often) worse–is telling the FCC about the effectiveness of the new Reassigned Number Database:

3. Callers can easily avoid making calls to telephone numbers that have been reassigned to someone other than the enrollee

A primary source of TCPA litigation risk has been calls inadvertently made to numbers that are no longer assigned to the person who provided consent. Courts have held the caller liable for making automated calls to a cell phone number that has been reassigned to someone other than the person who provided consent to be called.29

The Commission has implemented the Reassigned Number Database specifically to address that risk of liability, as well as to limit the number of unwanted robocalls:

The FCC’s Reassigned Numbers Database (RND) is designed to prevent a consumer from getting unwanted calls intended for someone who previously held their phone number. Callers can use the database to determine whether a telephone number may have been reassigned so they can avoid calling consumers who do not want to receive the calls. Callers that use the database can also reduce their potential Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) liability by avoiding inadvertent calls to consumers who have not given consent for the call.31

The database has been fully operational since November 1, 2021. It provides a means for callers to find out before making a call if the phone number has been reassigned. If the database wrongly indicates that the number has not been reassigned, so long as the caller has used the database correctly, no TCPA liability will apply for reaching the wrong party. 32 Thus, as long as HHS’s callers make use of this simple, readily available database, they can be confident that they will not be held liable for making calls to reassigned numbers.

While I steadfastly support both the creation and use of the RND, it also must be observed that there are myriad problems with the RND as it currently exists. Most importantly, the data sets in the RND are only comprehensive through October 1, 2021 and spotty back to February, 2021 (beyond which there are no records!)

So for folks like HHS–and servicers of mortgages, and retailers, and credit card companies–who want to reach customers who provided their contact information before 10/2021 or 2/2021 the RND is simply not helpful.

The NCLC’s over simplification of a critical issue is not surprising. They once told Congress that the TCPA is “Straightforward and Clear” after all.

Full comment here: NCLC Comments-c3

We’ll keep an eye on developments on HHS’ letter and all the FCC goings ons.

Article By Eric J. Troutman of Troutman Firm

For more TCPA and communications legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Troutman Firm

HIPAA Enforcement Continues Under Right of Access Initiative

On March 28, 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced the resolution of two additional cases as part of OCR’s HIPAA Right of Access Initiative.

The Right of Access Initiative was launched by OCR in 2019 “to support individuals’ right to timely access their health records at a reasonable cost under the HIPAA Privacy Rule” as explained by OCR. In the March 28 announcement, OCR indicated its continuing commitment to enforce compliance with the HIPAA Rules, including the “foundational” Right of Access provision. With the two most recent cases, there have now been 27 investigations and settlements under the Right of Access Initiative (see full chart below).

Nearly all of the investigations in the Right of Access Initiative involve a single individual unable to obtain a copy of some or all of their protected health information from a health care provider or to do so within the timeframe required or in accordance with fees permitted by the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In some cases, additional issues found during the investigation, such as failure to have conducted a HIPAA risk assessment or lack of HIPAA policies, are part of the settlement.  In all cases, in addition to the monetary penalty, the settlement has included a Corrective Action Plan imposing various obligations, such as policy development, training, and mandatory reporting to OCR.

The Right of Access Initiative remains one of the most active areas of HIPAA enforcement. In its most recent Annual Report to Congress on HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rule Compliance, OCR noted that right of access was the third most common issue of complaints resolved. Moreover, the Right of Access Initiative coordinates with the ONC 2020-2025 Federal HIT Strategic Plan and the goal of “Providing patients and caregivers with more robust health information.” It is a core tenant of the Federal HIT Strategic Plan that access to health information will “better support person-centered care and patient empowerment.”

Article By Allen R. Killworth and Zeina Abu-Hijleh of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

HHS OIG Signs Off on Substance Use Recovery Incentive Program

On March 2, 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office of the Inspector General (the “OIG”) issued a new advisory opinion (“AO 22-04”) related to a program through which the Requestor would provide certain individuals access to digital contingency management (“CM”) and related tools to treat substance use disorders (“Program”).  The OIG advised that it would not impose administrative sanctions under the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) or the Beneficiary Inducements Civil Monetary Penalty Law (“CMPL”).

The Requestor, a digital health company, offers a Program that uses smartphone and smart debit card technology to implement CM for individuals with substance use disorders, addressing aspects of these disorders “in ways that conventional counseling and medications often cannot.” The Requestor makes this technology available to individuals who meet certain requirements through contracts with a variety of entities, such as health plans, addiction treatment providers, employee assistance programs, research institutions, and other treatment providers (“Customers”).

Individuals (‘Members”) are Customer- or self-referred, and are subject to a structured interview using the American Society of Addiction Medicine Continuum Triage tool before participation in the Program. The Requestor’s enrollment specialist, under the guidance of a licensed clinical supervisor, determines the type of services and frequency of recovery coaching using an evidence-based, automated algorithm. The Program technology establishes the schedule of expected target behavioral health events, objectively validates whether each expected event has occurred, and, if it has, promptly disburses the exact, protocol-specified incentive to the Member, using (where appropriate) a progressive reinforcement schedule.

The Program is not limited to treatments or federally reimbursable services; it also includes, among other features, support groups, medication reminders, and appointment attendance verification. For those that do include federally reimbursable services, the Requestor advised that such services may be furnished by a Customer. Incentives from the Program are provided to Members via a “smart debit card.” The card includes “abuse and anti-relapse protections (e.g., it cannot be used at bars, liquor stores, casinos, or certain other locations nor can it be used to convert credit to cash at ATMs or gas stations)”, and allows the Requestor to monitor use. Incentives are capped at $200/month and $599/year; individual incentives are typically relatively small, at $1-$3.

The Requestor receives fees from Customers on either a flat monthly basis, per eligible, active Member, or a pay-for-performance model, in which Requestor is paid upon a Member achieving certain agreed-upon targets for abstinence. The Requestor certified that the aggregate fees are consistent with fair market value and do not vary based on the volume or value of business generated under federal health care programs. Instead, fees are based on the service configurations being purchased and the intensity of behavioral targets that are planned for each Member, as well as whether a member is low- or high-risk, and in or out of treatment.

OIG concluded that two stream of remuneration potentially implicate the AKS and CMPL.  First, Customers pay Requestor a fee to provide services, some of which could incentivize a Member to receive a federally billable service. Second, some of the fees Customers pay to Requestor get passed on to Members as CM Incentives for achieving certain behavioral health goals, some of which may involve services that could be billable to Federal health care programs (e.g., a counseling session) by a particular provider or supplier, which could be a Customer. OIG noted its longstanding concerns relating to the offer of incentives intended to induce beneficiaries to obtain federally reimbursable items and services, as such incentives could present significant risks of fraud and abuse.

The OIG concluded that the Program presents a minimal risk of fraud and abuse and declined to impose sanctions, providing four justifications –

  1. The Requestor certified that the Program is based in research, and provided evidence that CM is a “highly effective, cost-efficient treatment for individuals with substance use disorders.” Therefore, the OIG decided that, taken together with the other safeguards present in the Arrangement, the incentives in the Requestor’s Program serve as “part of a protocol-driven, evidence-based treatment program rather than an inducement to seek, or a reward for having sought, a particular federally reimbursable treatment.”
  2. The incentives offered through the Program have a relatively low value and a cap, and largely are unrelated to any federally payable services, especially as the Requestor is not enrolled in and does not bill to federal health care programs for Program services. Therefore, the OIG determined that the risk of the incentives “encouraging overutilization of federally reimbursable services is low.”
  3. The Requestor’s Customer base is not limited to entities that have an incentive to induce receipt of federally reimbursable services. While the OIG acknowledged that there may be instances where an incentive may be given for receiving a federally billable service, the fees do not vary based on volume or value of any federally reimbursable services, and the Customers do not have control of the Program. Therefore, the OIG determined that the risk is low an entity would become a Customer to “generate business or reward referrals.”
  4. Although the incentives loaded onto a smart debit card function as cash equivalents, the OIG found the safeguards included in the Arrangement sufficient to mitigate fraud and abuse concerns. The Requestor, which does not bill federal health care programs or have an incentive to induce overutilization, determines what services an individual needs and what incentives are attached. Additionally, the smart debit card has “anti-relapse protections”, which can signal possible need for intervention. Therefore, the OIG concluded that the remuneration in the form the smart debit card is sufficiently low risk.

AO 22-04 reflects HHS’s continued aims to increase flexibility around substance use disorder treatments.  Just two weeks before, HHS announced two grant programs, totaling $25.6 million, to expand access to medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder and prevent the misuse of prescription drugs. In a press release, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra is quoted as saying, “At HHS we are committed to addressing the overdose crisis, and one of the ways we’re doing this is by expanding access to medication-assisted treatment and other effective, evidenced-based prevention and intervention strategies.” HHS’ “National Tour to Strengthen Mental Health” is intended to “hear directly from Americans across the country about the challenges they’re facing, and engage with local leaders to strength the mental health and crisis care in our communities”, focused on three aspects: mental health, suicide, and substance use. Further flexibilities should be anticipated in these areas as the Tour continues.

Anyone seeking treatment options for substance misuse should call SAMHSA’s National Helpline at 800-662-HELP (4357) or visit findtreatment.gov. If you or anyone you know is struggling with thoughts of suicide, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-TALK (8255), or text the Crisis Text Line (text HELLO to 741741).

Article By Christine M. Clements and Theresa E. Thompson of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Surprise! The No Surprises Act Changes Again

The No Surprises Act (Act), which became effective Jan. 1, 2022, is the latest health care law passed with the best of intent: to create consumer protection from unexpected out-of-network medical bills and to create a federal independent dispute resolution (IDR) process to resolve payment disputes between payers and out-of-network providers. Unfortunately, the Act, especially the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) implementation of the IDR process, also creates a new administrative burden for health care providers. Providers and medical associations filed lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions to challenge HHS’ implementation of the IDR process and the constitutionality of the Act before it was even in effect.

On Feb. 24, 2022, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted the Texas Medical Association’s Motion for Summary Judgement to vacate select IDR requirements. The Court found that HHS’ interim final rule’s IDR process, intended to resolve payment disputes regarding reimbursement for out-of-network emergency services and out-of-network services provided at in-network facilities, was contrary to the clear language of the Act[1] (Rule).

In general, the Act[2] requires health insurance payers (Insurers) to reimburse providers for certain out-of-network services at a statutorily calculated “out-of-network rate.”[3] Where an All-Payer Model Agreement or specified state law does not exist, to set such a rate, an Insurer must issue an initial out-of-network rate decision and pay such amount to the providers within 30 days after the out-of-network claim is submitted.[4] If the provider disagrees with the Insurer’s proposed out-of-network reimbursement rate, the provider has a 30-day window to negotiate a different payment rate with the Insurer.[5] If these negotiations fail, the parties can proceed to the IDR process.[6]

Congress adopted a baseball-style arbitration model for the Act’s IDR process. The Insurer and provider each submit a proposed out-of-network rate with limited supporting evidence. The arbitrator picks one of the offers while taking into account specified considerations, including the “qualified payment amount,” the provider’s training, experience, quality, and outcomes measurements, the provider’s market share, the patient’s acuity, the provider’s teaching status, case mix, and scope of services, and the provider’s/Insurer’s good-faith attempts to enter into a network agreement.[7] The “qualifying payment amount” (QPA), is designed to represent the median rate the Insurer would pay for the item or service if it were provided by an in-network provider.[8]

The Rule requires the IDR arbitrator to select the proposed payment amount that is closest to the QPA unless “the certified IDR entity [arbitrator] determines that credible information submitted by either party … clearly demonstrates that the [QPA] is materially different[9] from the appropriate out-of-network rate.”[10] This is a clear departure from the analysis set forth in the Act.

The Texas Medical Association challenged the Rule under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), arguing that the Departments exceeded their authority by giving “outsized weight” to one statutory factor over the others specified by Congress, and that the Departments failed to comply with the APA’s notice and comments requirements in promulgating the Rule. In turn, the Departments argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the claims.

After dispensing with defendant’s standing arguments, the Eastern District of Texas Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and determined that “the Act unambiguously establishes the framework for deciding payment disputes and concludes that the Rule conflicts with the statutory text.” Under the Act, the arbitrators (or certified IDR entities) “shall consider … the qualifying payment amounts” and the provider’s level of training, experience, and quality outcomes, the market share held by the provider, the patient’s acuity, the provider’s teaching status, case mix, and scope of services, and the demonstrated good faith efforts of both parties in entering into a network agreement.”[11] The Act did not specify that any one factor should be considered the “primary” or “most important” factor. The Rule, in contrast, requires arbitrators to “select the offer closest to the [QPA]” unless “credible” information, including information supporting the “additional factors,” “clearly demonstrates that the [QPA] is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate.”[12] The Departments characterized the other factors as “permissible additional factors” that may be considered only when appropriate.[13] The Court found that the Department’s Rule was inconsistent with the Act and that since Congress had spoken clearly on the factors to be considered in the arbitration process, the Department’s interpretation of the Act was not appropriate and had exceeded the Department’s authority.[14]

Following the Court’s decision, the Departments issued a memorandum on Feb. 28, 2022, clarifying the Act’s requirements for providers and Insurers. The memo specifically noted that the Court’s decision would not, in their opinion, affect the patient-provider dispute resolution process.[15] The Departments also stated they would withdraw any guidance inconsistent with the Court’s Opinion, provide additional training for interested parties, and keep the IDR process portal open to resolve disputes. The Departments also will be considering further rulemaking to address the IDR process.

The No Surprises Act continues to surprise us all with more adaptations. Enforcement of this new law remains uncertain in light of the numerous legal challenges, including at least one constitutionality challenge.

[1] Requirements Related to Surprise Billing: Part II, 86 Fed. Reg. 55,980 (Oct. 7, 2021).

[2] Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. BB, tit. I, 134 Stat. 1182, 2758-2890 (2020).

[3] 300gg-111(a)(1)(C)(iv)(II) and (b)(1)(D).

[4] 300gg-111(a)(1)(C)(iv) and (b)(1)(C).

[5] 300gg-111(c)(1)(A).

[6] 300gg-111(c)(1)(B).

[7] 300gg-111(c)(5).

[8] 300gg-111(a)(3)(E)(i)(I)-(II).

[9] “Material difference” is defined as “a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person with the training and qualifications of a certified IDR entity making a payment determination would consider the submitted information significant in determining the out-of-network rate and would view the information as showing that the [QPA] is not the appropriate out-of-network rate. 149.510(a)(2)(viii).

[10] 45 C.F.R. 149.510(c)(4)(ii).

[11] 300gg-111(c)(5)(C)(i)-(ii).

[12] 45 C.F.R. 149.510(c)(4)(ii)(A).

[13] 86 Fed. Reg. 56,080.

[14] Because the Departments had exceeded their statutory authority, no Chevron deference was owed to their regulations. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984).

[15] This is a separate dispute resolution process designed to address disputes between patients and providers when bills for uninsured and self-pay patients are inconsistent with the good faith estimate provided by the health care provider.

Article By Stacey A. Borowicz and Joseph D. Wheeler of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

For more healthcare legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.